Tell me what my station will get from HD radio.

[SUPERCASTER]

Mike Walker said:

HD is perhaps the biggest money pit of our lifetime.

For both HD AM and FM, I agree.
HD AM creates much interference for little gain or benefit, and HD FM is expensive, uses adjacent channels, has poor coverage, is unnecessary and outmoded.
FMeXtra (www.dreinc.com) does digital using the same aacPlus codec, at the same fidelity, at less cost, with better coverage, is not proprietary, and does not trespass on adjacent channel neighbors.

 

[Mike Walker]

As for fm, using adjacent channels is not a problem according to current FCC rules. There is no protection to first adjacent channels. But I just can't hear any interference on these adjacent channels, anyway. CAN YOU? If so, post a recording of the interference caused by an FM HD station in your area. I DARE YOU TO! PROVE that it causes AUDIBLE (as opposed to measurable) interference! Got a local hd station on 97.3? Make a recording of 97.1, or 97.5 which demonstrates interference from HD! If you can't do that, then.......

As for HD AM, I suspect that making such a recording would be pretty damn simple. I wish I had access to a local HD AM station so I could prove, or disprove what I believe to be true about it.

 

[Mike Walker]

How much would you care to wager that Congress will EVER take away the FCC's ability to choose technical standards for radio and tv? At least the FCC has some damn fine engineers at it's disposal. Who would do it, CONGRESS? We saw with AM stereo what happens when the "marketplace decides". I believe government is involved in many things it shouldn't be, but choosing technical standards for broadcasting isn't one of them!

I take Mr. Sununu's point, however, about the FCC not operating in the public interest. This FCC has done MUCH to make things worse. A better president would make better choices for commissioners!

 

[Len14043]

As for fm, using adjacent channels is not a problem according to current FCC rules. There is no protection to first adjacent channels. But I just can't hear any interference on these adjacent channels, anyway. CAN YOU? If so, post a recording of the interference caused by an FM HD station in your area. I DARE YOU TO! PROVE that it causes AUDIBLE (as opposed to measurable) interference! Got a local hd station on 97.3? Make a recording of 97.1, or 97.5 which demonstrates interference from HD! If you can't do that, then.......

As for HD AM, I suspect that making such a recording would be pretty damn simple. I wish I had access to a local HD AM station so I could prove, or disprove what I believe to be true about it.

Mike,
Although I am a strong advocate of FM HD, I acknowledge that it does cause interference - only that a DXer would notice. For Instance, we have a local 102.7 in Cincinnati. Prior to 102.7 running HD, 102.9 from Springfield (about 70 miles away) was receivable - albiet with much crosstalk from the local 102.7. Now that 102.7 runs IBOC, a hiss is heard on 102.9 which sounds almost identical to an empty channel. Because of the capture effect of FM, this "inaudible" sideband covers up the 102.9 signal from Springfield. Despite the interference caused that us DXers notice, I think stations should be allowed to use more power on those digital sidebands. Hopefully, Ibiquity will petition the FCC on this matter. I hope this helps.

 

[700WLW]

How much would you care to wager that Congress will EVER take away the FCC's ability to choose technical standards for radio and tv? At least the FCC has some damn fine engineers at it's disposal. Who would do it, CONGRESS? We saw with AM stereo what happens when the "marketplace decides". I believe government is involved in many things it shouldn't be, but choosing technical standards for broadcasting isn't one of them!

I take Mr. Sununu's point, however, about the FCC not operating in the public interest. This FCC has done MUCH to make things worse. A better president would make better choices for commissioners!

We'll see - this is just an amendment to his bill, that has already passed.

 

[Mike Walker]

I have an FM in my area (88.8 WNCW Spindale NC) that is HD, and an adjacent FM (88.5, WFDD Winston Salem) that is not. I haven't noticed any difference in interference between now, and before WNCW went HD. I even coaxed the engineer at WNCW to briefly cycle the HD on and off a couple of times once to see if I heard any effects from it, and I didn't. I suppose a lot of it is receiver dependent.

I understand a real potential problem caused by FM hd is reduced signal to noise ratio in really cheap stereo radios (Walkman-type headphone radios, boomboxes, etc.). I've heard of measured noise ten db or more greater with HD on, compared to off. But with well designed component tuners and receivers, there's little or no difference. I dunno'!

I'd love to hear a recording of the interference you're getting. I've actually been trying to hear some effect of HD on adjacent channels (FM), and so far have been unable to. I don't doubt that it causes SOME problems. It only makes sense that the extra energy put into adjacent channels does SOMETHING. But if it's pretty minor, as it seems to be, then it's probably a sacrifice worth making. Pity the low power fms for whom HD would probably be impractical even if someone gave them the equipment. These flea-powered operators just can't take much reduction in coverage! Another reason why analog should NEVER be turned off!

 

[hipporadio]

As for fm, using adjacent channels is not a problem according to current FCC rules. There is no protection to first adjacent channels...

Mike,
Although I am a strong advocate of FM HD, I acknowledge that it does cause interference - only that a DXer would notice. For Instance, we have a local 102.7 in Cincinnati. Prior to 102.7 running HD, 102.9 from Springfield (about 70 miles away) was receivable - albeit with much crosstalk from the local 102.7. Now that 102.7 runs IBOC, a hiss is heard on 102.9 which sounds almost identical to an empty channel. Because of the capture effect of FM, this "inaudible" sideband covers up the 102.9 signal from Springfield.

This past Thanksgiving weekend, I was in Loveland, Ohio (northeast Cincinnati suburbs) and spent over an hour scanning the FM band—specifically looking for any indication of IBOC-induced interference. That area is rich with HD stations. It also is in close proximity to MANY communities where FM service is provided on second-adjacent channels... The Tri-State is well-packed with FM assignments, and many are VERY tightly spaced.

Dismissing the first-adjacent channels (Mike is correct in his statement above), I could find NO OBJECTIONAL DEGREDATION due to HD carriers—even on distant low-powered Class As at +/- 400kHz. I DID share Len’s observation regarding 102.9 from Springfield—but that is a “Grandfathered” and somewhat severe short-space which has been a historical Achilles Heal for WEBN’s coverage at 102.7. Well before HD Radio, reception of 102.9 was short of fulfilling and downright undependable in the far-north Cincy metro area. The post-1964 allocation scheme and current mileage-separation requirements would not allow for that scenario to begin from scratch today. In fairness, you cannot blame HD FM for that situation... If the 102.7/102.9 ruckus is THE ONLY casualty, I vote to fire up the IBOC ‘puter and sell all the FM HD you can to a select and skeptical market... Remember all those $100 four-function hand-held calculators?

 

[Len14043]

As for fm, using adjacent channels is not a problem according to current FCC rules. There is no protection to first adjacent channels...

Mike,
Although I am a strong advocate of FM HD, I acknowledge that it does cause interference - only that a DXer would notice. For Instance, we have a local 102.7 in Cincinnati. Prior to 102.7 running HD, 102.9 from Springfield (about 70 miles away) was receivable - albeit with much crosstalk from the local 102.7. Now that 102.7 runs IBOC, a hiss is heard on 102.9 which sounds almost identical to an empty channel. Because of the capture effect of FM, this "inaudible" sideband covers up the 102.9 signal from Springfield.

This past Thanksgiving weekend, I was in Loveland, Ohio (northeast Cincinnati suburbs) and spent over an hour scanning the FM band—specifically looking for any indication of IBOC-induced interference. That area is rich with HD stations. It also is in close proximity to MANY communities where FM service is provided on second-adjacent channels... The Tri-State is well-packed with FM assignments, and many are VERY tightly spaced.

Dismissing the first-adjacent channels (Mike is correct in his statement above), I could find NO OBJECTIONAL DEGREDATION due to HD carriers—even on distant low-powered Class As at +/- 400kHz. I DID share Len’s observation regarding 102.9 from Springfield—but that is a “Grandfathered” and somewhat severe short-space which has been a historical Achilles Heal for WEBN’s coverage at 102.7. Well before HD Radio, reception of 102.9 was short of fulfilling and downright undependable in the far-north Cincy metro area. The post-1964 allocation scheme and current mileage-separation requirements would not allow for that scenario to begin from scratch today. In fairness, you cannot blame HD FM for that situation... If the 102.7/102.9 ruckus is THE ONLY casualty, I vote to fire up the IBOC ‘puter and sell all the FM HD you can to a select and skeptical market... Remember all those $100 four-function hand-held calculators?

You are so right about the tight spacing. If you are near the Xenia area, the FM dial is full of stations from Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and other smaller cities. With respect to the 102.7/102.9 situation, it's not the interference from IBOC that concerns me. It's the interference from the analog signal on 102.9 that wreaks havoc on 102.7 HD signal as you travel north, and limits it to about 15 miles. Most of Cincinnati's HD signals are receivable to about 35 miles from the tower. I think that an increase in the digital sidebands would be appropriate.

 

[hipporadio]

How much would you care to wager that Congress will EVER take away the FCC's ability to choose technical standards... At least the FCC has some damn fine engineers at its disposal.

I apologize in advance for any trivial comparison to a once-outstanding President... But there you go again, Mike : I’m laughing out loud and nearly on the floor over that one!

Would these be the same “fine engineers” that casually allowed Docket 80-90 to cascade out of control and permitted blatant abuse of the “final measure of resort” provision in Section 217c (your Statesville FM legend was a victim in part due to the creative interpretation of those rules)? No Mike—those very engineers sat by powerless to control a multi-decade “hamster dance” on the FM band. They also rubber-stamped the experimentation and predestined approval of an HD transmission system THEY KNEW would be impractical for small-market unsubsidized broadcasters and lower-powered stations... You admitted such in your following statement here...

Pity the low power FMs for whom HD would probably be impractical even if someone gave them the equipment. These flea-powered operators just can't take much reduction in coverage!

Are these also the same “fine engineers” who systematically nodded at the lower-leg amputation of the AM service over the years—and now seem intent to extend that amputation to hip-level with the approval of defective and destructive AM IBOC?

I do NOT doubt that many very fine technical minds HAVE served in the regulatory function. I’m a former operator who actually wrote one several large checks—AFTER he segued to the private sector of course! His name is Don Everest (long retired) and he ran the Audio Division during the Ford Administration. As of 1990, his sad concern was that his contemporaries at the Commission were frequently dismissed and overruled by staff bureaucrats with dubious intentions (and maybe even “obligations”). What few “fine engineers” remain are simply waiting for a pension check—and long ago learned to “speak only when spoken too” :'(

 

[Mike Walker]

I was actually going by a freind of mine, Paul Whitney, who has provided engineering talent to the FCC, especially on AM matters. I could just as easily have said (I suppose) that "the FCC has access to many engineers who are total idiots".

Probably true of any large organization or agency...a few geniuses, a few idiots (perhaps in equal measure)

 

[700WLW]

I was actually going by a freind of mine, Paul Whitney, who has provided engineering talent to the FCC, especially on AM matters. I could just as easily have said (I suppose) that "the FCC has access to many engineers who are total idiots".

Probably true of any large organization or agency...a few geniuses, a few idiots (perhaps in equal measure)

I used to work for NSA (employee/contractor) Ft. Meade, Md. - many extremely bright engineers/computer scientists, but many, very dysfunctional, with no common sense. I might add, without going into detail, of course, there were some crypto-analysts, who had manually "worked" on a particular system, for so many years, that they fought/refused to let anyone automate (i.e., to make easier, not antiquate) their work.

 

[calstymes]

dumber than a box of hair decried:

ElCheapo declared:

This forum is made up of three different types of users:

1) DXers - they hate HD Radio because it has the potential to harm their hobby. They refuse to consider that most people don't use radio the way they do and are extremely anti-IBOC. The little group from this board is responsible for most of the anti-HD reviews on retail sites. We're so very proud of them.

2) Webcasters/Streaming Enthusiasts - why they're so anti-IBOC is a mystery. They claim HD Radio will fail, and is no threat to streaming, yet they spend untold amounts of time and effort here bemoaning HD and pushing an anti-HD message. The only logical reason would be that they seem to hate traditional radio period and have simply found kindred spirits in the DXer crowd. vsa fits in this category. He's hoping you'll ask him to elaborate so he can indoctrinate you on the power of streaming.

3) Everyone else - an extremely small minority. The other two groups have pretty much chased off anyone who was either pro-HD or at least had an open mind and wanted to discuss it.

3) Broadcast engineers and other professionals with decades of experience - who know a scam when they see it. They are dismayed at the way a private company has begun charging extortionate licensing fees for their questionable technology, with the blessing of a federal regulatory agency which is supposed to be regulating in the name of the people, not just handing broadcasting standards over to private interests. They are also appalled at the way this technology, on the AM band, destroys the band's usability because it causes massive, documented interference on adjacent channels. You need to hope and pray that a station on a channel adjacent to yours doesn't light up HD Radio. If they do, you might as well go silent and turn in your license, because no one will be able to listen to your station.

4) Those station owners who have bought into the hype, which was targeted directly at them by that private company I mentioned, without questioning it in the least. Those are the people I feel the most sorry for. They're being played and they aren't even aware of it. At least Bill took the time and trouble to ask about it before buying into it.

Thank you, dummer!

I am so tired of arrogant individuals on this message board who characterize those of us as DXers and/or Webcasters/Streaming Enthusiasts who have some actual knowledge about how these things really work and also know that this technology is as seriously flawed as the company that purportedly developed and is licensing it.

And it is of absolutely no help that the Federal regulatory agency which should be functioning in the public interest is not and would rather rubber stamp its approval of this flawed and underhanded company's business practices.

Come hell or high water, this company MUST have its public offering to pay back all that money that was raised by speculative investors and the Federal regulatory agency is going to do everything it can to make sure they don't lose their money.

The time to speak out against this awful technology is NOW. Make your voices heard. Tell 'em you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore!

 

[hipporadio]

dumber than a box of hair decried:

ElCheapo declared:

This forum is made up of three different types of users:

1) DXers - they hate HD Radio because it has the potential to harm their hobby. They refuse to consider that most people don't use radio the way they do and are extremely anti-IBOC. The little group from this board is responsible for most of the anti-HD reviews on retail sites. We're so very proud of them.

2) Webcasters/Streaming Enthusiasts - why they're so anti-IBOC is a mystery. They claim HD Radio will fail, and is no threat to streaming, yet they spend untold amounts of time and effort here bemoaning HD and pushing an anti-HD message. The only logical reason would be that they seem to hate traditional radio period and have simply found kindred spirits in the DXer crowd. vsa fits in this category. He's hoping you'll ask him to elaborate so he can indoctrinate you on the power of streaming.

3) Everyone else - an extremely small minority. The other two groups have pretty much chased off anyone who was either pro-HD or at least had an open mind and wanted to discuss it.

3) Broadcast engineers and other professionals with decades of experience - who know a scam when they see it. They are dismayed at the way a private company has begun charging extortionate licensing fees for their questionable technology, with the blessing of a federal regulatory agency which is supposed to be regulating in the name of the people, not just handing broadcasting standards over to private interests. They are also appalled at the way this technology, on the AM band, destroys the band's usability because it causes massive, documented interference on adjacent channels. You need to hope and pray that a station on a channel adjacent to yours doesn't light up HD Radio. If they do, you might as well go silent and turn in your license, because no one will be able to listen to your station.

4) Those station owners who have bought into the hype, which was targeted directly at them by that private company I mentioned, without questioning it in the least. Those are the people I feel the most sorry for. They're being played and they aren't even aware of it. At least Bill took the time and trouble to ask about it before buying into it.

Thank you, dummer!

I am so tired of arrogant individuals on this message board who characterize those of us as DXers and/or Webcasters/Streaming Enthusiasts who have some actual knowledge about how these things really work and also know that this technology is as seriously flawed as the company that purportedly developed and is licensing it.

And it is of absolutely no help that the Federal regulatory agency which should be functioning in the public interest is not and would rather rubber stamp its approval of this flawed and underhanded company's business practices.

Come hell or high water, this company MUST have its public offering to pay back all that money that was raised by speculative investors and the Federal regulatory agency is going to do everything it can to make sure they don't lose their money.

The time to speak out against this awful technology is NOW. Make your voices heard. Tell 'em you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore!

OH MY! You Go-Go-Go Cal... This is one of the most cogent and conveniently-compressed posts I have viewed here (and dumber's ammendment was right-on also). PERFECT SUMMATION! [You should be a trial attorney... SORRY for that insult] ;D PLEASE come back more often!

The ultimate culprit in this rouge are the regulators charged with the sacred trust of managing a public resource. iNot can be dismissed as any business interest driven by their own shameless self-promotion, but ISN'T that why we HAVE and accept the NEED for a regulatory referee? Clearly the latter has failed!

 

[700WLW]

Let's get serious - here's the form to send Senator Sununu a note (I already have, explaining this destructive technology):

http://www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html

 

[hipporadio]

I logged on here and anticipated the worst—a barrage from the corporate HD-lovers. I was a bit relieved... Mind many in a forum—I welcome advice in the “digital state of the art”. Based on my very minimal engineering acumen, I’m NOT the one to choose a technical route. I enjoy obvious minds better than mine from posters like Tom Wells, SUPERCASTER, vsa, RC5, and Kelly... 700 has posts I enjoy here also! I learn stuff from that. Actually—I can handle the pro-HD perspective so long as it’s presented in a cogent and polite debatable manner. I may not agree with you, but we still can be friends!

The current “digital scheme” displaces my mind—I just DON’T understand their progression. Their “marketing” is amoung the worst I have seen—and I’m a marketing dude! I have heard EXCELLENT analog AM—it meets up to the usual crap in pop culture and more than satisfies my ears. I hope the “sane minds” here won’t just toss AM over the rail because of an empty promise from iBlock! HD AM DOES NOT deliver a comfy position here—I’m prepared to debate that FACT... But I promise to do so politely! I know you "corporates" have an agenda, but be forewarned—I believe AM IBOC needs to be BANNED... I'll give you a good argument, OK?

I'm taking a "leave" but I'll cherish the good posters here... I hope the industry finds some sanity!

 

[Mike Walker]

I'd probably be categorized as "Pro HD" by many here, but that's not entirely fair. I've been VERY critical of the AM system all along.

Now for all it's faults, AM HD MAY be capable of good sound quality. But if it is, I've yet to hear a sample online that proves the point! It fascinates me that the pro AM HD people post samples that sound absolutely attrocious in defense of AM HD! We're supposed to toss all AM DX reception under the bus for sound on-par with a dialup internet codec? GEEZ!

ANALOG AM is capable of far better sound than anything I've heard so far!

FM HD is a different matter. Bitrates are sufficient to produce better sound quality than most people hear from analog FM. Yes, analog fm can sound competitive, but requires a far more expensive setup to do so. I wonder if most analog fm listeners, especially in cars, even realize that what they're hearing often isn't really stereo? Car audio manufacturers (rightly so) employ aggressive blend of the stereo image to reject noise in weak signal or multipath conditions. So FM listeners more than 20 miles from the tower, particularly if there are tall buildings or a hilly terrain, seldom hear anything approaching full stereo. HD is a breath of fresh air in comparison! I know, many will pile on with "defective technology" and all the other crap. But that's the way I experience it every time I listen. And I listen daily, for hours.

As for the marketing aspects, Hippo you are SO right. What the hell are they thinking? Explain to people what the hell it is, and how it benefits them, and cut out the cryptic, silly bull!

 

[700WLW]

I'd probably be categorized as "Pro HD" by many here, but that's not entirely fair. I've been VERY critical of the AM system all along.

Now for all it's faults, AM HD MAY be capable of good sound quality. But if it is, I've yet to hear a sample online that proves the point! It fascinates me that the pro AM HD people post samples that sound absolutely attrocious in defense of AM HD! We're supposed to toss all AM DX reception under the bus for sound on-par with a dialup internet codec? GEEZ!

ANALOG AM is capable of far better sound than anything I've heard so far!

FM HD is a different matter. Bitrates are sufficient to produce better sound quality than most people hear from analog FM. Yes, analog fm can sound competitive, but requires a far more expensive setup to do so. I wonder if most analog fm listeners, especially in cars, even realize that what they're hearing often isn't really stereo? Car audio manufacturers (rightly so) employ aggressive blend of the stereo image to reject noise in weak signal or multipath conditions. So FM listeners more than 20 miles from the tower, particularly if there are tall buildings or a hilly terrain, seldom hear anything approaching full stereo. HD is a breath of fresh air in comparison! I know, many will pile on with "defective technology" and all the other crap. But that's the way I experience it every time I listen. And I listen daily, for hours.

As for the marketing aspects, Hippo you are SO right. What the hell are they thinking? Explain to people what the hell it is, and how it benefits them, and cut out the cryptic, silly bull!

The HD Radio Cartel/iBiquity should have learned from the 1980's failure of AM stereo - no one cares that much about audio quality, to buy into this farce; considering in-dash HD Radio, where road noise will nullify any, so called, improvements. Analog will always sound better, because it is natural, not digitally reproduced (just, look at lousy digital cell phones). Also, with IBOC's poor coverage, this further nullifies any, so called, advantages. I've never had any problems with FM analog's coverage, or sound quality - I have even driven up to Skyline Drive, through mountains, and the FM signals have never failed. You claims about FM's versus HD Radio's coverage are false - we know through many tests, and personal statements, that YOUR statments are untrue. One interesting comment on Jerry Colliano's site, that if the Cartel had given the $200,000,000 to the auto industry for free advertising, in exchange for installing in-dash HD Radio, as standard equipment, HD Radio may have had a chance - table-top HD Radio, as we already know, has been a complete failure. But one question - how would consumers return their in-dash HD radios, when they don't work as advertised.

 

[audiophile.]

But one question - how would consumers return their in-dash HD radios, when they don't work as advertised.

Return the car under lemon laws, after having radio replaced three times

 

[SUPERCASTER]

But one question - how would consumers return their in-dash HD radios, when they don't work as advertised.

Return the car under lemon laws, after having radio replaced three times

That will make the struggling American car makers really happy! HD radio is just what they need. Right, HD supporters?

 

[Mike Walker]

New AM Stereo radios are being introduced TODAY. I just bought one. I think it's my SEVENTH one. AM Stereo is in MILLIONS of cars. And dozens of countries. HD may well fail, just like that!